Fwd: How is God to be seen ?

[Guest guest]

People, key on the word *felt* in the last paragraph -- perhaps the

most important word in the entire quotation.

 

Here's an interesting inquiry -- (how) can consciousness be felt?

 

Namaste,

 

Tim

 

NondualitySalon, Jan Sultan <sworkalpha> wrote:

 

Q: How is God to be seen ?

 

Ramana Maharshi :

Within. If the mind is turned inwards , God manifests

as the inner consciousness.

 

Q: But isn't God in all the objects we see around us ?

 

Ramana Maharshi :

God is in everything and in the seer. Where can God be seen ?

He cannot be found outside. He should be felt within. To see the

objects , mind is necessary , and to conceive God in them

is only a mental operation. But that is not real. The

consciousness

within , purged of the mind , is felt as God.

>From CONSCIOUS IMMORTALITY via RamanaMaharshi group

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

, "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote:

 

[snip]

> Ramana Maharshi :

> God is in everything and in the seer. Where can God be seen ?

> He cannot be found outside. He should be felt within. To see the

> objects , mind is necessary , and to conceive God in them

> is only a mental operation. But that is not real. The

> consciousness

> within , purged of the mind , is felt as God.

>

> From CONSCIOUS IMMORTALITY via RamanaMaharshi group

> --- End forwarded message ---

 

It's extremely important to note that the 'feeling' of the Self

is of an entirely different class than the 'feeling' of sensation.

Ramana uses the word 'felt' (or was translated as such) because

there isn't a word for the term 'directly know.'

 

We can feel happy, sad, pleasure, pain, etc, but we certainly

cannot feel the Self in the same way. In fact, feeling the Self

is about as far from our normal feelings as anything could be. If

we attempt to feel the Self with these faculties we'll always be

disappointed. The Self is as unavailable to the emotional mind

as it is to the thinking mind.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jody,

 

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@h...> wrote:

> It's extremely important to note that the 'feeling' of the Self

> is of an entirely different class than the 'feeling' of sensation.

> Ramana uses the word 'felt' (or was translated as such) because

> there isn't a word for the term 'directly know.'

>

> We can feel happy, sad, pleasure, pain, etc, but we certainly

> cannot feel the Self in the same way. In fact, feeling the Self

> is about as far from our normal feelings as anything could be. If

> we attempt to feel the Self with these faculties we'll always be

> disappointed. The Self is as unavailable to the emotional mind

> as it is to the thinking mind.

 

Agreed completely with "all the above" -- feeling here doesn't refer

to emotions, or even to physical sensations. What it means is to be

discovered, not described -- Nisargadatta referred to "it" as "the

touch of I-am-ness" or "sense of Beingness."

 

What i get out of Ramana's reference to "God" is he is not referring

to the Self in that reference (those two terms he never confuses).

The "feeling of consciousness" cannot be the Self, as a "feeler" is

required. Rather, "God" in this reference i see pointing to the

sense of Beingness noted by Nisargadatta, the overwhelming

*assertion* of "pure consciousness" or Beingness, which is "supported

by" the Self.

 

Namaste,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

P.S... to Jody,

 

i notice you tend to objectify "The Self" in your messages, as if it

were an "it" or some kind of God, or "something difficult to reach."

 

"The Self" is actually everywhere, commonplace, ordinary... within

the everyday experience of all, but ignored, overlooked, obscured by

desires, hopes, beliefs, scattered thoughts and such. This is one

aspect of Hinduism or Advaita Vedanta that i could personally do

without, this tendency to glorify the ordinary, the everpresent,

always-already-available. Buddhism neatly sidesteps that trap.

 

Cya,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim,

 

I'm with you here - Buddhism and Advaita do go about this differently. Self, no

self. Love, emptiness. Glorify the present, accept as-is-ness. In some

respects these pairs bespeak grave theoretical differences. But in other

respects they come to nothing other than a temperamental thing, a matter of

taste, personality or preference.

 

Amituofo,

 

--Greg

 

At 06:27 PM 12/27/01 +0000, fewtch wrote:

>P.S... to Jody,

>

>i notice you tend to objectify "The Self" in your messages, as if it

>were an "it" or some kind of God, or "something difficult to reach."

>

>"The Self" is actually everywhere, commonplace, ordinary... within

>the everyday experience of all, but ignored, overlooked, obscured by

>desires, hopes, beliefs, scattered thoughts and such. This is one

>aspect of Hinduism or Advaita Vedanta that i could personally do

>without, this tendency to glorify the ordinary, the everpresent,

>always-already-available. Buddhism neatly sidesteps that trap.

>

>Cya,

>

>Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

Having studied Vedanta fairly extensively (through Vivekananda,

Nisargadatta, Ramana, the Upanishads, others) and Buddhism less so

but still to a fair extent, i don't see the "grave theoretical

differences" at all. i never have. Temperamental aspects, yes,

definitely.

 

Perhaps i haven't done enough comparative studies, or perhaps i just

tend to look past the words themselves to the spirit between and

beyond them... who knows? I don't see any enlightened sages engaging

in debates with Zen Roshis -- but plenty of debate between their

students.

 

Loveya,

 

Tim

 

, <goode@D...> wrote:

> Hi Tim,

>

> I'm with you here - Buddhism and Advaita do go about this

differently. Self, no self. Love, emptiness. Glorify the present,

accept as-is-ness. In some respects these pairs bespeak grave

theoretical differences. But in other respects they come to nothing

other than a temperamental thing, a matter of taste, personality or

preference.

>

> Amituofo,

>

> --Greg

[Guest guest]

, "fewtch" <coresite@h...> wrote:

> P.S... to Jody,

>

> i notice you tend to objectify "The Self" in your messages, as if it

> were an "it" or some kind of God, or "something difficult to reach."

 

When jnana dawns in a life, there is a 'knowledge' of our identity

as the Self. This 'knowing' is an objective understanding, apart

from our understanding of the way a car works, etc. The Self Itself

is not an object, but the understanding of it can be seen as such,

and must necessarily be referred to as such at times in the context

of discussion.

> "The Self" is actually everywhere, commonplace, ordinary... within

> the everyday experience of all, but ignored, overlooked, obscured by

> desires, hopes, beliefs, scattered thoughts and such. This is one

> aspect of Hinduism or Advaita Vedanta that i could personally do

> without, this tendency to glorify the ordinary, the everpresent,

> always-already-available. Buddhism neatly sidesteps that trap.

 

I agree completely about the ubiquity of the Self and the tendencies

of the Hindus to put It on a pedestal. This precipitates yet another

layer of occluding ideology in a spiritual culture that is full of

such thought.

 

However, while the Self is ordinary and always there, the direct

knowledge of Its existence is a completely different kind of

understanding than what might be considered ordinary. That is,

when jnana has dawned, the kind of 'knowing' that results is of a

whole different class than the other kinds of 'knowing' we are used

to. This isn't to glorify the former as much as to contrast it with

what we usually know as 'knowing.'